Catholics & Catholicism

Question:

[to alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic] WARNING: IN THIS POST, I SAY PROTESTANTISM IS UNBIBLICAL. IF YOU DON’T WANT TO READ SUCH A SHOCKING ASSERTION, PLEASE SKIP THIS ARTICLE. THANKS. First, I would like to point out that this posting is obviously provocative.  Those who wonder why Protestants make apologetic postings in a Catholic newsgroup should not be surprised when Catholics make postings like this.

You were warned. Look at Matthew 16:18, John 3:5, John 6:53, and John 20:22-23, for instance. I know of no Protestant who takes the Lord at His word in all of these passages. (Except those Protestants who are on the way out of Protestantism.) Presumably you know what the response is going to be here:

I did say, "in all of those passages". "All". And further below, which you have omitted here, I took great pains to point out that it is impossible for anybody to account for every Protestant variation of doctrine and biblical interpretation. That’s all I need to know to know that Protestantism was wrong from the beginning. Why do you need to know more? Who was right when they disagreed–Luther or Calvin or Zwingli or Cranmer or Simons? Or don’t you care who was right? Mat 16:18:  Absolutely, Christ built his church on Peter (or Peter’s faith, depending upon how you read the passage), although not on Peter exclusively.  As a Protestant, I am grateful to Peter for his steadfast leadership.  I hope that all Christian leaders will emulate him.

Do a Web search. You will find dozens of webpages by Protestants denying that Christ founded his Church on Simon. John 3:5:  All Christians — Catholic, Protestants, and Orthodox — are "born of water and Spirit".  One assumes that this is a reference to Baptism, though I think there is a wider reference to the role of the Holy Spirit as well.  Unless Catholics have suddenly become Donatists, this passage does not seem to be raise Catholic/Protestant issues.

Do a Web search. You will find dozens of webpages by Protestants denying that baptism has any substantive connection with being born again. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -John 6:53:  Almost all Christians — Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox — "eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood".  They have varying ideas about the metaphysics of this, but all carry out communion as called for by Christ in the Last Supper.  This is a Catholic/Protestant issue only if you believe that transsubstantiation is the only doctrine consistent with the real presence of Christ in the sacrament.  But that seems a far-fetched reading of John, since John (and the NT in general) do not contain any metaphysical theory of the real presence. The distinctive teaching of transsubstantiation is not the real presence of Christ — on which several Protestant and Orthodox approaches agree — but the real absence of the substance of bread and wine.  The real absence is not taught in Scripture. (Indeed it seems to contradict scripture: in the account of the last supper Jesus refers to the wine as "the fruit of the wine" even after consecrating it.  However for the sake of unity, I am prepared to accept transsubstiation as one of several possible explanations for the real presence.)

Do a Web search. You will find dozens of webpages by Protestants denying that Holy Communion is anything but a symbolic memorial. John 20:22-23: This describes the responsibility of church discipline, which Matthew refers to as the keys.  This is an area where most modern churches (including Catholics) appear to have some weakness.  All accept that discipline is the responsibility of the Church.  But it is very hard to practice it in the 20th Cent. without damaging the congregation more than helping. Thus in practice it seems to be reserved for extreme cases, typically sexual abuse.  I am far from clear that the Catholic church is systematically better in maintaining discipline than other churches. I think that it has tended to focus discipline on peripheral and questionable areas (e.g. contraception and divorce), and that this has compromised the effectiveness of discipline.

Do a Web search. You will find dozens of webpages by Protestants denying that anybody on earth has the authority to forgive sins. And since when do Presbyterians believe it? However I don’t want to make this into a Catholic/Protestant issue, because I think this is a general problem.  It would be interesting to look at the successes and failures of various approaches.  However that sort of exchange is not likely to result from the confrontational approach you’re taking.

You don’t like my style. The rest of the posting seems to lack sufficient substance to merit response, since it assumes what is not proven (that Protestants ignore the teachings of Jesus).

I proved it sufficiently for some Protestants, not all, which is what I explicitly said. I welcome e-mail replies. But I have no time for e-mail debates.

Response:

This posting seems assume that Protestants reject the idea that Christ gave authority to the Church.  Perhaps some do, but I haven’t seen it. I’m most familiar with the Reformed tradition.  We have elders, who are ordained with laying on of hands.  They are expected to lead, and to provide for the spiritual health of the congregation.  (Ministers are a special sub-office of elder.)

Once again, I get the sense that your theology in this area is closer to that of the RCC than that of the more fundamentalist-minded who also post here who do deny the idea of Church authority, and place all their faith in their personal reading of scripture outside of the interpretive norms provided by the Church. John 20:21-3 speaks to me very clearly that Jesus did intend that his earthly ministry be continued after his departure: 1. "As the Father has sent me, so I send you" (a direct commission) 2. He breathed on them (reminiscent of God’s breathing life into Adam; symbolic of conferring some share in Divine life) 3. Reception of the Holy Spirit (conferring of Divine authority) 4. Authority to forgive/retain sin (definitely a Divine prerogative) The more I read those few verses, the more convinced I am that this portion of John’s Gospel describes the root from which the authority of the Church flows. Aq.

Response:

Once again, I get the sense that your theology in this area is closer to that of the RCC than that of the more fundamentalist-minded who also post here who do deny the idea of Church authority, and place all their faith in their personal reading of scripture outside of the interpretive norms provided by the Church. John 20:21-3 speaks to me very clearly that Jesus did intend that his earthly ministry be continued after his departure:

I wouldn’t use the term "fundamentalist".  That originally (and I think still) means someone who hold to the core Christian doctrines. The Lutheran and Reformed traditions are "confessional".  While Scripture is the final standard, these churches are committed to working out the implications of Scripture in community.  By and large these groups are still committed to the Reformation-era standards, although there are variations in how strictly they are applied. (Indeed this is the primary significant difference, I think.  Even fairly conservative theologians within both communities now look to both Luther and Calvin as "the Reformers", even if we may think that one or the other had a somewhat better account of the Real Presence or the nature of election.  The big difference is between those who still take the Reformation standards seriously, and those who believe that the redemptive death of Christ is part of a patriarchical plot to dominate womyn.) There are fundamentalist Lutherans and Reformed.  The fundamentalists tend to be even more strongly committed to the confessions, and thus even less likely to support idiosynratic interpretations of Scripture than I would be (not that I’m very likely to do so). If there are any groups that actually practice private interpretation of Scripture (and frankly I am dubious that any really do this in any consistent way), they would be non-confessional churches.  Those churches are the spiritual descendants of the Radical Reformation.  I realize that Catholics blame Luther for all Protestantism, as well as everything from mosquitos to the threat of nuclear destruction.  But in fact the Radical Reformation is quite a different animal.

Response:

How can you say that the RCC is Biblical if it is not following the teaching of St. Paul, whereas a Protestant Chuirch which is following the words of St. Paul is unBiblical? It seems that you have it wrong with reference to which Church follows the Biblical teachings of St. Paul. Charles

If I was going to church with St. Paul, I’d definitely follow his words. But somehow I think if St. Paul lived in California today, he’d write something different.

Response:

I think the more relevant point is whether you see Peter’s selection for leadership as evidence of a primacy, a hierarchical structure for the Church which involves the establishment of a leader-shepherd role, something we Catholics call the Papacy and the Magisterium? Or is the flock meant to wander around without an earthly leadership to guide it to salvation? Surely

… Certainly I think Christ and the Apostles intended leadership and structure.  However that doesn’t mean that they established the Papacy.  There are many possible patterns of stucture and leadership. I don’t think the NT descriptions of offices are used in such a systematic way as to provide just a single pattern. I’m not interested in a debate as to which church structure matches most closely the NT structure. The evidence doesn’t seem good enough to produce a single answer.  I would say that this is because Christ left us the flexibility to adapt our structure to our needs.  I will say that to the extent I can see a pattern, it appears that Peter held an office (apostle) that is not the same as modern bishops and pastors.  However because I don’t believe the NT intends to teach a detailed organizational structure, I have no problem with people regarding Peter as a role-model for modern bishops. … John 20:22-23: This describes the responsibility of church discipline, which Matthew refers to as the keys. Oddly enough, in my Bible John 20:22-3 deals with the authority to forgive sin following the breathing on the Apostles by Christ. The only other time when God breathed on man was when he gave Adam a share in existence (Gen 2:7). The meaning of breathing on the Apostles, coincident with the command to receive the Holy Spirit, is surely the transfer to them of a share in the divine life of Jesus, who went around forgiving sins, and making people whole again.

John 20:22-23 talks about the authority both to forgive sin and not forgive it.  That is what I mean by discipline: not just forgiving, but determining where forgiveness is and is not appropriate.  I was concentrating on the authority to not forgive sins, because I think it is more problematical for the 20th Cent church.  I would hope that all branches of the church go around forgiving sins and making people whole again.  I agree that we do so through the power of the Holy Spirit, and by virtue of our participation in Christ. This posting seems assume that Protestants reject the idea that Christ gave authority to the Church.  Perhaps some do, but I haven’t seen it. I’m most familiar with the Reformed tradition.  We have elders, who are ordained with laying on of hands.  They are expected to lead, and to provide for the spiritual health of the congregation.  (Ministers are a special sub-office of elder.)

Response:

Isn’t the primary differnce one of a mindset. The way of thinking and approach to scripture, tradition and authority. Protestants, fundamentaist in prarticulair, see scripture as a one time revelation now how to implement it, an individualistic apporach to authority. RC and Orthodox see scripture-tradition-church-authority as a synergistic whole a living dynamic "thing" that is constantly growing and revealing itself never apart from the community of faithful. Nektarios – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – WARNING: IN THIS POST, I SAY PROTESTANTISM IS UNBIBLICAL. I am not so sure. I read in the newspaper that the Southern Baptists have decided to continue to follow the teachings of St. Paul with regard to women in the Church and their relationships to their husbands. Please read I Corinthians ch11, vs 5, and I corinthians ch 14, vs 34. In our local (RC) Church we heard a sermon given by a lady in     which she said that the history of the RCC was one of discrimination against women. This was given by her without any head covering.  How can you say that the RCC is Biblical if it is not following the teaching of St. Paul, whereas a Protestant Chuirch which is following the words of St. Paul is unBiblical? It seems that you have it wrong with reference to which Church follows the Biblical teachings of St. Paul. Charles

 Jack Nektarios Ferguson    Seoul Korea

Response:

Mat 16:18:  Absolutely, Christ built his church on Peter (or Peter’s faith, depending upon how you read the passage), although not on Peter exclusively.  As a Protestant, I am grateful to Peter for his steadfast leadership.  I hope that all Christian leaders will emulate him.

I think the more relevant point is whether you see Peter’s selection for leadership as evidence of a primacy, a hierarchical structure for the Church which involves the establishment of a leader-shepherd role, something we Catholics call the Papacy and the Magisterium? Or is the flock meant to wander around without an earthly leadership to guide it to salvation? Surely you see in the Council of Jerusalem, the appointment of successors to the Apostles, the mention of bishops, the existence of presbyters etc., (all in the NT) the establishment of a _structure_ for the primitive Church with authority to make doctrinal decisions, to preach, to forgive sins etc. Basically to continue the work of Jesus. John 3:5:  All Christians — Catholic, Protestants, and Orthodox — are "born of water and Spirit".  One assumes that this is a reference to Baptism, though I think there is a wider reference to the role of the Holy Spirit as well.  Unless Catholics have suddenly become Donatists, this passage does not seem to be raise Catholic/Protestant issues.

Maybe not for Catholic/mainstream Protestantism issues. But for Catholic/Protestant Fundametalism, this is a big issue. There are several posters here who maintain that salvation is by faith alone. And for those, this is just one aspect of a more general denial of sacramentalism. John 6:53:  Almost all Christians — Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox — "eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood".  They have varying ideas about the metaphysics of this, but all carry out communion as called for by Christ in the Last Supper.

Again, the conflict is much greater between Catholicism and Fundamentalism than between Catholicism and mainstream Protestantism. John 20:22-23: This describes the responsibility of church discipline, which Matthew refers to as the keys.

Oddly enough, in my Bible John 20:22-3 deals with the authority to forgive sin following the breathing on the Apostles by Christ. The only other time when God breathed on man was when he gave Adam a share in existence (Gen 2:7). The meaning of breathing on the Apostles, coincident with the command to receive the Holy Spirit, is surely the transfer to them of a share in the divine life of Jesus, who went around forgiving sins, and making people whole again. Aq.

Response:

WARNING: IN THIS POST, I SAY PROTESTANTISM IS UNBIBLICAL.

I am not so sure. I read in the newspaper that the Southern Baptists have decided to continue to follow the teachings of St. Paul with regard to women in the Church and their relationships to their husbands. Please read I Corinthians ch11, vs 5, and I corinthians ch 14, vs 34. In our local (RC) Church we heard a sermon given by a lady in     which she said that the history of the RCC was one of discrimination against women. This was given by her without any head covering.  How can you say that the RCC is Biblical if it is not following the teaching of St. Paul, whereas a Protestant Chuirch which is following the words of St. Paul is unBiblical? It seems that you have it wrong with reference to which Church follows the Biblical teachings of St. Paul. Charles

Response:

WARNING: IN THIS POST, I SAY PROTESTANTISM IS UNBIBLICAL. IF YOU DON’T WANT TO READ SUCH A SHOCKING ASSERTION, PLEASE SKIP THIS ARTICLE. THANKS.

First, I would like to point out that this posting is obviously provocative.  Those who wonder why Protestants make apologetic postings in a Catholic newsgroup should not be surprised when Catholics make postings like this. Look at Matthew 16:18, John 3:5, John 6:53, and John 20:22-23, for instance. I know of no Protestant who takes the Lord at His word in all of these passages. (Except those Protestants who are on the way out of Protestantism.)

Presumably you know what the response is going to be here: Mat 16:18:  Absolutely, Christ built his church on Peter (or Peter’s faith, depending upon how you read the passage), although not on Peter exclusively.  As a Protestant, I am grateful to Peter for his steadfast leadership.  I hope that all Christian leaders will emulate him. John 3:5:  All Christians — Catholic, Protestants, and Orthodox — are "born of water and Spirit".  One assumes that this is a reference to Baptism, though I think there is a wider reference to the role of the Holy Spirit as well.  Unless Catholics have suddenly become Donatists, this passage does not seem to be raise Catholic/Protestant issues. John 6:53:  Almost all Christians — Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox — "eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood".  They have varying ideas about the metaphysics of this, but all carry out communion as called for by Christ in the Last Supper.  This is a Catholic/Protestant issue only if you believe that transsubstantiation is the only doctrine consistent with the real presence of Christ in the sacrament.  But that seems a far-fetched reading of John, since John (and the NT in general) do not contain any metaphysical theory of the real presence. The distinctive teaching of transsubstantiation is not the real presence of Christ — on which several Protestant and Orthodox approaches agree — but the real absence of the substance of bread and wine.  The real absence is not taught in Scripture. (Indeed it seems to contradict scripture: in the account of the last supper Jesus refers to the wine as "the fruit of the wine" even after consecrating it.  However for the sake of unity, I am prepared to accept transsubstiation as one of several possible explanations for the real presence.) John 20:22-23: This describes the responsibility of church discipline, which Matthew refers to as the keys.  This is an area where most modern churches (including Catholics) appear to have some weakness.  All accept that discipline is the responsibility of the Church.  But it is very hard to practice it in the 20th Cent. without damaging the congregation more than helping. Thus in practice it seems to be reserved for extreme cases, typically sexual abuse.  I am far from clear that the Catholic church is systematically better in maintaining discipline than other churches. I think that it has tended to focus discipline on peripheral and questionable areas (e.g. contraception and divorce), and that this has compromised the effectiveness of discipline.  However I don’t want to make this into a Catholic/Protestant issue, because I think this is a general problem.  It would be interesting to look at the successes and failures of various approaches.  However that sort of exchange is not likely to result from the confrontational approach you’re taking. The rest of the posting seems to lack sufficient substance to merit response, since it assumes what is not proven (that Protestants ignore the teachings of Jesus).

Response:

[to alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic] WARNING: IN THIS POST, I SAY PROTESTANTISM IS UNBIBLICAL. IF YOU DON’T WANT TO READ SUCH A SHOCKING ASSERTION, PLEASE SKIP THIS ARTICLE. THANKS.

[....] I chose Catholic BECAUSE the ideals of my Baptist faith told me to.  As if you like, it’s a long story, but in short: the bible made me do it.

Me, too. Because people get confused.  That’s all.  Right now, as firm as he appears in being a "Bible-based Christian," he’s probably fighting some battles inside.  TAKE SIDES.  Be that Catholic voice in his and challenge his every word. As you might expect, when I do that, he refuses to really engage in much discussion about it.  He will generally quote a phrase or two directly from the Bible, and then refuse to even elaborate on the quotes.  He’ll just adopt the attitude "God said it, I believe it, that’s all there is to it."  He tells me that there is no point in discussing it unless I can point to exactly where in the Bible it says it.

He may adopt that attitude, but it would be illusory. Look at Matthew 16:18, John 3:5, John 6:53, and John 20:22-23, for instance. I know of no Protestant who takes the Lord at His word in all of these passages. (Except those Protestants who are on the way out of Protestantism.) In other words, the Protestant attitude really is, "God said it, I agree with some of it, that’s all there is to it." Or, "God said it, Luther (or Calvin or Zwingli or Cranmer or Simons or some other Protestant founder) says it means such-and-such, I believe Luther (etc.), that’s all there is to it." Or, "God said it, I think it means such-and-such, I believe I’m right, that’s all there is to it." That is the real Protestant attitude. True, nearly all Protestants sincerely believe that their attitude is the one you expressed; but, show them Catholic doctrine out of the Lord’s own mouth, and they’ll do handstands, cartwheels, and somersaults to explain away the clear meaning of His plain words. The Catholic attitude is this: "Jesus said we must be born again of water, that we must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, that He would found His Church on Simon the Fisherman, and that His Apostles had the authority to forgive (or retain) sins. Why should I not believe Jesus Christ the Lord? Who is anybody on earth to tell me that He did not really mean what He said?" [....] told you, either in letter or by mouth."  Tradition is all over the bible.  Go to those web sites. I will.  You know, he is huge fan of St. Paul.      He quotes from Paul more than he does from anywhere else in the Bible.  To the quote cited above, he would probably say that Paul is affirming the fact that only what is specifically written down in Scripture is truly "part of Christianity."  Or words to that effect.  But he is a particular admirer of the Biblical words of Paul.

Protestantism is based on St. Paul’s writings. Actually, it’s based on distortions of his meaning, but that’s another story. My point is this: on the whole, by and large, and in the main (I am trying to prevent nitpicking on the part of Protestant posters who demand that we distinguish every sort of Protestant from every other sort of Protestant, which is the best way some of them can come up with to argue with us), Protestantism considers the teaching of St. Paul to be more important than the teaching of the Lord Himself. This is not always a conscious attitude, so some (not all) Protestants will deny this vehemently. Protestantism takes its interpretation of St. Paul as its starting point; it interprets the rest of the New Testament, including the words of the Lord Himself (and even some of St. Paul’s own words, and especially the words of St. James), in light of what is thought to be taught in St. Paul–namely, justification by faith alone. Catholicism, on the whole, by and large, and in the main, is based upon the teachings of the Lord; St. Paul’s writings (and the rest of the New Testament) are looked upon, and interpreted, more as commentary, expansion, and explanation of what the Lord Himself taught. That aspect of Protestantism is similar to another: Protestantism thinks that Christanity is Bible-based and that Christianity must be so. (Though, in fact, Protestantism itself is not Bible-based.) The Catholic Church knows better: Christianity is Christ-based, not Bible-based. Christian belief and practice began with Christ, continued through the Apostles and their disciples, and was then partly expressed through the Sacred Scriptures (and partly not so expressed). So, Protestantism begins with distorting St. Paul’s teachings, then sets that distortion up as the interpretive guide to the rest of the Scriptures, then (supposedly) sets up the Scriptures as the basis of Christian belief and practice. Catholicism begins with Jesus Christ and His teachings, then takes the teachings of His Apostles (whether in the Sacred Scriptures or not) as the only sure guide to the Lord’s own teaching. I welcome e-mail replies. But I have no time for e-mail debates. "The Protestant does not intend to attack the Bible. He acts instead on a concealed imperative. What Protestantism is, is organized opposition to the Catholic Church. Holy Scripture supports Catholic doctrine from the first page to the last. So whenever he is asserting Protestant denials of Catholic doctrine, the Protestant must sooner or later oppose Holy Scripture also." Pauline Zingleman, _Catholics, Protestants, and the Bible_, page 84

Response: